parental involvement and the theory of planned behavior · parental involvement and the theory of...

PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT ANDTHE THEORY OF PLANNED BEHAVIOR

DR. DEBORAH BRACKE

DR. DANIEL CORTS

Augustana CollegeEducation Department

Rock Island, IL

The "Theory of Planned Behavior" provided a specific theoreti-cal framework to evaluate the impact of attitudes, norms, andcontrols on parental involvement in a local school district. The"new knowledge" that resulted from the measurement of theseconstructs affirmed that regardless of the perceived level ofparental involvement, virtually all parents believed that engage-ment in their child's education was important (attitudes).Parents also shared a variety of "good intentions" in wanting toparticipate in a range of scheduled school activities. In addition,the same obstacles (or "controls") to these "good intentions"were shared between parents deemed "involved" and parentsdeemed "not involved." There was a significance difference innorms, however. Parents perceived as "not involved" were morelikely to note that friends and neighbors were not activelyinvolved -and that a majority of parents were unable or unlike-ly to be actively involved. This provides a rationale for anorm-based initiative that might increase parental involvement.

IntroductionThe literature related to parents and

schools is rife with articles that convey aconvincing and positive connectionbetween parent involvement and academ-ic achievement (Henderson & Mapp,2002), school attendance (Sheldon, 2007),graduation rates (Harvard Family ResearchProject, 2006), educational aspirations(Greenwood & Hickman, 1991), positiveclassroom behavior (Cotton & Wikeland,2001), enrollment in more challenging cur-ricula (Heymann, 2000), and favorableattitudes towards school (Henderson &Mapp, 2002; Trusty, 1996; Astone &McClanahan, 1991). Long term social andfinancial benefits, such as improved healthoutcomes, decreased welfare dependence,and reduced crime are also correlated withincreased parental involvement (Haveman

& Wolfe, 1995). Augmenfing these find-ings is research that indicates that theearlier in a child's educational process par-ent involvement begins, the more powerfulthe effects (Cotton & Wikeland, 2001).

Many of these investigations parallelthe original observations of Henderson andBerla (1994), who reviewed 66 studies ofparental involvement and overwhelming-ly concluded that parents play a crucialrole in the instructional experiences of theirchildren. Although this conclusion maystrike some as mere "common sense," it isimportant to mention that these data rep-resent more than just a correlation. Thereare some clear paths through which suchinvolvement improves student success. Areview of the literature suggests that whenparents/guardians are involved, teachersgive more attention to students, teachers

188

Parental Involvement and The Theory... /189

tend to identify potential learning prob-lems at earlier stages, parents and teachersare able to coordinate efforts to aid indi-vidual students and provide familyservices, communides prioritize to buildand maintain better physical facilities,schools recruit and retain quality staff andadministration and schools are more like-ly to obtain new funding for after-schoolprograms and other innovative supports(Zill & Nord, 1994; Epstein, 1995; Medi-ratta & Fruchter, 2001). Thus, it is not anoverstatement to suggest that when par-ents "show up," they have enormouspotential to positively impact the intellec-tual, emodonal, and physical developmentof their children, school, and community.Hence, there is perhaps no topic on whichthere is greater agreement than the needfor parental involvement in a child's edu-cadon (Epstein, 1995).

The consensus that parents are associ-ated with a range of enhanced schooloutcomes is mirrored by legislative poli-cies that mandate increasingly specific,research-based programs of family involve-ment. In fact, for the first dme in the historyof the Elementary and Secondary Educa-tion Act, there is a definition of parentalinvolvement that is designed to facilitatethe development of parent involvementpractices. Most recendy, NCLB outlined acascade of school, district, and staterequirements that are intended to involveparents in ways that close the achievementgap between disadvantaged minority stu-dents and their peers. Specifically, thesepolicies hope to promote student achieve-ment via shared accountability betweenschools and parents. Some of these provi-sions include "expanded public school

choice and supplemental educational ser-vices for eligible children inlow-performing schools, local develop-ment of parental involvement plans withsufficient flexibility to address local needs,and building parents' capacity for usingeffective practices to improve their ownchildren's academic achievement" (U.S.Department of Education, 1994). Con-nected to these well-intentioned policiesis a simple message from former U.S. Sec-retary of Educadon, Rod Paige, who states,"Schools can't improve without the help ofparents" (Paige, 2002, p. A-13).

Undoubtedly, the involvement of par-ents is vital to the success of our schools.So, why aren't more parents involved? Therewards of parent involvement are so clear.There is a well-established body ofresearch that supports the assertion thatparents can influence students learning andeducational success. There is more andmore interest in developing school-basedcomprehensive programs and partnerships.And, there is increased governmental sup-port for school-home partnerships. It thusbecomes important to ask the quesdon,"what... education?" What are some ofthe barriers to becoming an involved par-ent in a child's educadon?

Hoover-Dempsey and Sandier (1995,1997) addressed this very quesdon in theirstudies of parents' motivations for involve-ment. One important conclusion put forthby these authors was that parental involve-ment is related to "role construcdon" - thatis, the belief that a parent "should" or"should not" be involved in their children'seducation. The authors broadened thisnodon with the assertion that such beliefsare often shaped by the parent's personal

190 / Education Vol. 133 No. 1

experiences with schooling and the par-ent's personal perceptions about schooling.Thus, if parents believe that "good par-enting" means that they should take anactive role in their children's education(role construction) then there is a greaterlikelihood that parents will take an activerole in their children's education.

Other constructs have been explored inrecent years. Green and her colleagues(2007) associated a parents feelings of self-efficacy for helping their child succeed inschool, parents' perceptions of 'being invit-ed' to participate in school relatedactivities, and parents' perceived time andenergy for involvement as additional pre-dictors of involvement.

Purpose of the StudyWith these questions in mind, we pro-

posed a program of research on parentalinvolvement. The first phase of our studyinvolved basic research. We used a frame-work adapted from the Theory of PlannedBehavior (Aijzen, 1991) to isolate any per-ceived barriers to parental involvement.The second phase of the study used theknowledge gained from our basic researchto develop a collaborative, targeted inter-vention that was designed to increaseparental involvement at the local schoollevel. Our third phase will take the form ofprogram evaluation, ongoing assessment,continuous improvement, and the eventu-al empowerment of parents so that a"domino effect" can be created and longrange benefits can be achieved.

This article addresses the first phase ofour study. We began with the question,"Why don't more parents participate intheir child's education?" and argued that

the answer to this question should beviewed as part of a "solution," rather thanas part of a "problem." This fundamentalshift in thinking promised no magic recipefor creating an engaged parent. It could,however, broaden our knowledge base byilluminating the attitudes, beliefs, andexpectations that frame parental involve-ment. In other words, we sought to advanceour own theoretical understanding with aresearch-based bridge that could generatea host of successful family-school inter-ventions.

Barriers to Parental Involvement.Research indicates that just about all

parents care about their children, want themto achieve, and believe that parentalinvolvement is critical to a successful edu-cational experience (Epstein, 2009).Unfortunately, these convictions often go"astray." In some instances, an unwelcomeschool atmosphere may create a barrierthat discourages participation. Teachersmay feel that families are not valuableresources in educating students; or thatfinding time in their "busy" school day isnot possible (Grant & Ray, 2010). Theseperceptions may be exacerbated byincreased legislative pressures that com-pel teachers to focus exclusively on"academics" so that they can meet higheracademic standards (Saunders, 2001). Inaddition to this shift in focus, there is alsoa general lack of teacher preparation in thearena of family-school relationships (Light-foot, 2003). Many teacher educationprograms do not provide pre-service teach-ers with opportunities to interact withfamilies in their field experiences, mean-ing that a teacher candidate may have had


litde practical experience in working withparents - and may thus be hesitant toengage with families (Grant & Ray, 2010).Additional research regarding teacher per-cepdons points to a lack of trust for parentalmotives (Adams et. al. 2009) or simply"general negative attitudes" about fami-lies (Edwards & Young, 1990, Goddard et.al. 2001, Hoy & Sweedand, 2001).

Other barriers to participadon are fam-ily-specific. What is perceived as an"unwelcome school environment" may dis-courage some parents from gettinginvolved (Arias & Morillo-Campbell,2008). Other barriers may be a parent'sown negative school experiences - thuscreating significant apprehension about"re-entering their child's school environ-ment" (Finders and Lewis, 1994).Additional sentiments that create a nega-tive mindset for parental involvementinclude a lack of trust in the school, lowself-esteem and feelings that involvementwon't 'make a difference.' (Hendersonand Mapp, 2002). Other reported barriersto participation include occupational lim-itations, scheduling conflicts, and financialrestrictions (Yap and Enoki, 1995).

It is equally important to mendon thaton some occasions, parents misunderstandtheir role in their children's educationbecause they don't comprehend (or can'tdecipher) the concept of involvement asdefined by the 'American school' (Quio-cho & Daoud, 2006; Wang, 2008). Anexample of this is found in a study con-ducted by Yap and Enoki, (1995) whocharacterize some home cultures as hold-ing the school in such high regard that itis not considered appropriate for parentsto interact with educators. Howard and

Reynolds (2008) take this deference to amore impassioned level in their study ofmiddle-class, African-American parents.They described African-American parentsas feeling a "sting of race and racism" intheir interacdons with the school environ-ment, thus limiting their enthusiasm forsuch parent-school interactions.

These barriers are exacerbated by anoth-er challenge to parental involvement - achallenge that is probably the most diffi-cult to describe. What does parentalinvolvement actually mean? We see iteverywhere in the literature - We know itis a good thing. However, like many termsthat line the school improvement land-scape, parental involvement is open tovarious interpretations. To some, it maysimply mean attendance at parent-teacherconferences. To others it might be the cre-ation of a home environment that supportslearning. Simply stated, there is no simpleanswer to the question because there is lit-tle consensus about what constitutes 'beinginvolved.' Is baking cookies for the annu-al book fair less compelling than helpinga child with his daily homework?

Long and Greene (2008) argue that theconcept of parent involvement is under-specified. "It is not always clear whatpolicymakers and others mean when theyrefer to parent involvement, the condidonsthat might foster parent involvement, orwhat factors might help children flourishin school" (p. 3.) So, while perhaps theo-retically noble, there are a number ofempirical problems that confound the studyof parent involvement. As a construct, itis complicated, encompassing a wide rangeof parent/child/school/community needs,abiUdes, processes, and interests. These


amorphous moving parts are embraced bya definition that lacks clarity...and areunderscored with a subtext that is com-posed of personal, intergenerational,economic, and cultural barriers. Perhapsit is time for researchers to acknowledgethe verity that ".. .there is no more complexand tender geography than the borderlandsbetween families and schools (Lightfoot,2003, xi). At the same time, it is critical thatthese important subtexts be examined asclosely and as thoroughly as possible.

The Problem and Theoretical FrameworkIn the spring of 2008, we engaged in a

conversation with our local District Super-intendent regarding the lack of parentalinvolvement in our local Midwesternschool district. This particular school dis-trict has an enrollment of about 6,300students divided into 9 elementary schools,two junior high schools, and one highschool. Approximately fifty percent of thedistrict's families are considered lowincome (that is, students from familiesreceiving public aid) and the district'sgraduation rate is 77%.' In terms of racial-ethnic background, approximately 56% ofthe district's students are white, 35% areblack, and 8% are of Hispanic origin.

During this conversation, we discussedthe different types of engagement oppor-tunities for parents. These included, butwere not limited to attendance at parentconferences, informal parent-teacher inter-actions during the school year, parentparticipation at "before-school" and "after-school" events, and parents simply beingpresent in the school buildings. His obser-vation (supported by District data) was thatparental participation across the district

was about 40%. This low participation ratewas referred to as a "problem. "

To increase our understanding of this"problem," we interviewed the district's"key players" (principals, teachers, parentcoordinators, and PTA representatives) andexamined a variety of district programsand interventions. We reviewed attendancefigures for parent conferences. Open Hous-es, fun nights, etc. - and discovered thatthese appraisals sometimes led to moreconfusion than understanding. For exam-ple, it was reported that the percentage forfall parent conferences was high because"Principals and teachers dog parents evenafter conferences are over to get themin.. .Many of the schools are pretty fierceabout getting as close to 100% as possible."'From these discussions, it was easy toacknowledge the fact that any study ofparental participation would be rather'thorny.' Nonetheless, we decided to pur-sue the issue further.

As a construct, we quickly realized thatparental involvement was somewhat rathergrueling to describe. We could notabsolutely explain what it 'looked like' -or how it was demonstrated or if it couldbe accurately measured. However, we didknow how important it was to "own" and"value" the distinct perspectives that madethis construct so problematic. We alsoknew that these distinct perspectives hadthe potential to make our conversationmuch more interesting and relevant.

An upshot of this understanding was adesire to view parent involvement throughmore constructive eyes; to're-character-ize ' it as a positive conversation that wouldprovoke us to think more widely. Conse-quently, during the summer of 2009, we


engaged in a literature review that focusedon studies related to parent involvementin low-income elementary school settings.As expected, this examination exposed thebenefits and complexity of parent involve-ment. It also provided us with a contextfor "solutions." It did not take us long toconclude that additional research couldserve as a window to other dynamic,deliberate, and culturally responsive inter-ventions that might foster parents'engagement in their children's education.

The Theory of Planned BehaviorTo focus our understanding - and pro-

vide a framework that would illuminatethis issue more clearly, we used Ajzen's,'Theory of Planned Behavior' (1991) tostructure our inquiry. Ajzen's psycholog-ical model of decision-making asserts thatthe most important determinants of inten-tional behavior are an individual's attitudesand beliefs, subjective norms, and per-ceived controls. According to Ajzen, thesethree classes of influences function as apredictor for human behavior (Figure 1).

Theory of Planned Behavior

(Ajzen, 1991)

BehavioralIntention

Attitudesand Beliefs

PerceivedControls


These three classes of influence provideda foundation for our study:

1. Attitudes and beliefs about the roles ofparents in education. Some parentsmay believe education is the school'sresponsibility, that they are unqualifiedto help, or they may not have consid-ered the possibility of getting involved.Other parents might have a sense ofempowerment and believe they canmake a positive difference in theirchild's education.

2. Subjective norms about the roles ofparents in education. Parents may notbe involved because they lack exam-ples of parental involvement. They maycome from a culture in which parentswere never expected to be involved, orsimply may not have had role modelsthat provided examples of parentalinvolvement. Other parents might haveseen their neighbors get involved and/orremember their own parents' contribu-tions to the school experience.

3. Perceived behavioral control overone's own level of involvement. Parentswith higher incomes might be morelikely to have flexible work hours andaccess to other resources, such as child-care. In low income families, it ispossible that parents have more restric-tive jobs. Additional obstacles toparticipation might be the availabilityof transportation and/or childcare.

It would follow that if parents evaluate par-ticipating in their child's school activitiesas "positive" (attitude/ belief), and if they

think their friends want them to partici-pate in their child's school activities(subjective norm), then they are more like-ly to do so. Conversely, if parents evaluateparticipating in their child's school activ-ities as "negative" (attitude/ belief), andthink their friends aren't interested in par-ticipating in school activities (subjectivenorm), then they are less likely to do so. Ifparents 'do not' have transportation (per-ceived control), then these attitudes andnorms might become affected, resulting ineven fewer opportunities for involvement.

Although there is no perfect correlationbetween behavioral intentions and actualaction, empirical studies have demon-strated a relationship between these twovariables (Alt &Lieberman, 2010). Thisis what provides a foundation for our inves-tigation. We propose that a greaterunderstanding of the attitudes, norms, con-trols, and intentions that frame parents'decisions to "participate" or "not partici-pate" in their child's education will lead topotential interventions and organized ini-tiatives that might promote more parentinvolvement. Our methods were charac-terized by two "phases."

MethodsDuring the fall term of 2009, we asked

76 elementary teachers to administer a"parent involvement" survey to the par-ents they perceived as "involved."Participating teachers were from one offive elementary schools in this local schooldistrict.

Since the definition of "involvement"can be vague and amorphous, we decidedto limit our definition of involvement towhat teachers could "see" or "interact"

Parental invoivement and The Theory... /195

with. Our definition included the follow-ing criteria:

• Parents who attend parent confer-ences

• Parents who contacfing their child'steacher during the school year

• Parents who participate in activitiesat their child's school during theschool year

• Parent who participate in eventsbefore or after school, or even on theweekends.

We asked parficipating teachers to con-sider these conditions and to make theirbest judgment regarding which of their stu-dent's parents were "involved parents."The parents meeting these criteria wouldreceive the survey. Upon distribution andconsent, some parents chose to completethe survey at their child's school duringparent conferences; in other instances thesurveys were taken home and returned tothe researchers via a self-addressed andstamped envelope. The opportunity to winone of fifteen $25 gift certificate to a localgrocery store served as an incentive forparent participafion.

The SurveyThe survey was comprised of four parts:

The first section of the survey consisted of7 statements about parental involvement.Parents were asked to rate each statementbased on how much they 'agreed' or 'dis-agreed' with each item. A five-point likertscale, with response options that rangedfrom "strongly disagree" to "stronglyagree," was used to differentiate respons-es. These 7 preliminary statements were

constructed by the researchers to reflectparental atfitudes and norms.

1. The most successful schools haveconsistent parental involvement.

2. Schools, not parents, are responsiblefor educating children.

3. My child's educafion will benefit ifI am involved with the school.

4. It is important to meet and keep intouch with my child's teacher.

5. Most parents at my child's schoolare actively involved.

6. My friends and neighbors are active-ly involved in the school.

7. The majority of parents at my child'sschool are unable or unwilling to beacfively involved with the school.

For example, statements such as, "Themost successful schools have consistentparental involvement." and "My child'seducation will benefit if lam involved withthe school. " were associated with parentalattitudes. In contrast, the statements, "Myfriends and neighbors are actively involvedwith the school." and "The majority ofparents at my child's school are unable orunwilling to be actively involved with theschool." were characterized as perceivednorms.

The second section of the survey askedparents to identify any items that mightinterfere with their ability to be involved.These were the "perceived controls" of thesurvey. Such barriers to participationincluded transportation, work schedule andchildcare. Subsequent to these, were thestatements, "I am unaware of how to getinvolved" and "I feel uncomfortable orunwelcome." These statements were


included so that the researchers could iso-late additional obstacles to parentalinvolvement. A section entitled, "other"allowed parents to fill in their own per-ceived barrier to involvement.

The third section of the surveyaddressed parental intentions (i.e. how theresponding parents planned on beinginvolved during the school year). The state-ment, "I plan to become involved duringthe school year by doing the following..."was followed by events such as OpenHouse, PTA meetings, and parent-teacherconferences. A final section that asked foridentifying information such as number ofchildren, ethnicity, and language spokenin the home completed the survey. A"blank" space for additional commentswas also provided.

Phase I: Parents Perceived as Involved.At the time of the survey, total enroll-

ment at the five participating schools was1,681 students. However, the populationfor this study consisted of par-ents/guardians deemed "involved" by theteachers in the five participating schools.Using the criteria established by theresearchers, teachers distributed the sur-vey to approximately 710 of the 1,681parents. (Again, it is important to mentionthat the population for this study is a "bestguess" estimate, based on informationobtained from each building principal,teacher, and the District Superintendent.)Of those parents solicited, 231 responded,yielding a response rate of 32%. Becausethe purpose of the inidal phase of the studywas to examine a "control" group of par-ticipating parents across varied schoolsettings, results were not reported for indi-

vidual schools.

Phase II: Parents Perceived as UninvolvedDuring the second segment of the study,

the same survey (using the same criteria)was administered to a second set of par-ents/guardians. In this segment of thestudy, survey responses from parents whowere deemed by teachers as "not involved"were solicited. Again, the opportunity towin one of fifteen $25 gift certificates wasused as an incentive. Because we antici-pated a low response rate, we soughtparticipants from three addidonal districtelementary schools. As a result, 38 moreteachers were included in the study. In thisnew aggregate of 114 teachers in eight ele-mentary schools, the teachers' "best guess"esdmates (based on the rubric that was pro-vided) identified 153 parents as"non-participating."

A self-addressed, stamped envelope wasused to facilitate convenience. Of the 153surveys that were distributed to parentsidentified as "not involved," 70 werereturned, yielding a response rate of 46%.

ResultsDuring this 'inidal phase' of our study,

we examined differences (in terms ofattitudes, norms, perceived controlsand intentions) between thoseparents/guardians who were deemed"involved" and those who were not. It didnot surprise us that virtually all parentsbelieved that it was important for them tobe involved in their child's educadon. Sim-ilarly, most parents had "good intentions"in regards to participating in a variety ofschool events. Interestingly, however, wefound a significant difference for norms -


t (295) = 2.683, p=.009. Our findings indi-cated that the parents perceived by teachersas "not involved" had a different sense ofother parents' involvement. They weremore likely to note that friends and neigh-bors were not actively involved -and thatthe majority of parents at their child'sschool were unable to be actively involved.

There were not significant differencesfor attitudes, controls, or intentions. (Itappears that the lack of significance forattitudes was due to a small effect size andnot Type II error -the sample size was largeand the measure was reliable. However,the control measure may need revision forthe next phase of our research.)

These measures were also entered intoa binary logisdc regression equation withparticipation as the dichotomous depen-dent variable. With norms as the onlysignificant predictor, the equation account-ed for approximately 3.3% of thevariability in participation. Additionalanalyses examined control issues. Trans-portation was significantly more of an issuefor those who did not participate 2 (n =297, 1)= 12.941,p=.OOl. However,therewere not differences for the other issuesthat might prevent participation. Workschedule affected a lot of people (about200) but did not discriminate among par-ticipants/non-participants. Finally, only 17people indicated that they were "unaware"of how to get involved.

In conclusion, these preliminary resultssuggest that regardless of the perceivedlevel of parental involvement, virtually allparents believed that engagement in theirchild's education was important (attitudes).Parents also shared a variety of "goodintentions" in wanting to participate in a

range of scheduled school activities. Inaddition, the same obstacles (or "controls")to these "good intentions" were sharedbetween parents deemed "involved" andparents deemed "not involved." That is,both groups of parents in our study report-ed that work schedules and childcarehampered their ability to participate.

These similarities clearly contributedto a greater understanding of parentalmotives, needs, and goals. What was espe-cially compelling, however, was thepossibility that social norms were the defin-ing variable in determining what parents"would do" or "would not do" with regardto parental involvement. From the resultsof our investigation, it was quite apparentthat the perception of participation as asocial norm might actually increase thelikelihood of parental involvement.

The premise that a full understandingof human behavior requires an authenticunderstanding of human motivation is nota new one. Thus, in order to create an'action' that is deliberate, frequent, vol-untary, and reliable (such as participatingin your child's school) one must look atthe incentives that are precursors to thatbehavior (i.e. school involvement). Theresults of our study clearly indicated that"social norms" were the best precursor tosuch involvement.

Social NormsCoon and Mitterer (2010) define norms

as "...widely accepted (but often unspo-ken) standards for appropriate behavior" (p.532). These customary rules of behaviorare often based on perceptions of what oth-ers think and do. In terms of parentalinvolvement, we argue that such social

198/Education Vol. 133 No. 1

norms give parents a "rule of thumb" forhow they should behave. It follows thatonce an expectation that other parents areinvolved is established, a particular moti-vation towards involvement is more likelyto emerge. Social norms, can consequent-ly become a legitimate psychological forcethat determines whether or not parents par-ticipate in their child's education.

As mentioned previously, Hoover-Dempsey et al (2005) also allude to theimportance of social norms in their stud-ies of parental involvement. This particularstudy fits in nicely with the extensive workthey have done. In some respects, ourresults based on Ajzen's, delineation ofindividual attitudes and beliefs, subjectivenorms, and perceived controls aligns withHoover-Dempsey's thesis that active roleconstruction is a means to improve parentalinvolvement. Certainly, additional inves-tigations are warranted so that thisimportant link (i.e. that of role construc-tion and its function and effects) can beunderstood more thoroughly.

Significance of the StudyThe verity of social normative pressures

structuring individual goals and percep-tions has been widely reported in theliterature (Lewis, 1969; Coleman, 1990;D' Andrade, 1990). There are also a mul-titude of research studies (previouslymentioned) that examine the positiveeffects of parental involvement on a child'seducation. With regard to this relationship,it follows that parental involvement maynot necessarily be an exclusive privateendeavor, but a social one. Given thisunderstanding, our task becomes one of"re-forming norms" so that the gap

between parental intentions and actualbehavior becomes achievable {...in theo-ry and in practice).

The "Theory of Planned Behavior"(Ajzen, 1991) provided a specific theoret-ical framework that allowed us to evaluatethe impact of attitudes, norms, and con-trols on human behavior {in this case,'parentalparticipation'). The "new knowl-edge" that resulted from the measurementof these constructs was consequential,yielding several important outcomes:

1. It affirmed parents' and guardians'positive attitudes about schoolinvolvement

2. It clarified the dissonance betweenparents' professed attitudes, values,and intentions and their actualbehaviors.

3. It provided a rationale for a norm-based initiative that might increaseparental involvement.

4. It offered support for a long-term,collaborative relationship betweenhigher-education and the local com-munity.

This investigation is much broader thanthe theoretical interest of any particulardiscipline. It is the beginning of a long-term association with parents, teachers,students, and administrators in our localcommunity. Previously, there was very lit-tle information about the actual contextthat influences a parent or guardian's deci-sion to participate at school. Perhaps thistriangulation of theory, research, and expe-rience will provide such a context. If weare able to re-frame the family-school rela-tionship and encourage new social norms.


the potential for increased parental involve-ment is possible. By utilizing the academicresources we have available, we may beable to provide an evidence-based inter-vention that promotes parentalinvolvement.

Implications for Future ResearchThis leads us to the second phase of our

study. It is here that we will recognize thecapacity of parents more deliberately byexploring the impact of "social norms" onparental participation. Data obtained from"Phase I" of our investigation will providea comprehensive, evidence-based contextthat will be used to develop a specific"norm-based" intervention that targetsincreased parental involvement. A pre andpost analysis of parent/guardian partici-pation rates will also be more rigorouslyevaluated. Finally, data regarding "behav-ioral intentions" will be compared withdata that addresses "actual behavior."

It is vital that we remain focused on therelationship between parental participa-tion and student achievement. Parents areessential to the education of their children.It is the foundation on which all our workwill rest.

ReferencesAdams, CM., Forsyth, P.B. & Mitchell, R.M.

(2009). The formation of parent-school trust:A multi-level analysis. Educational Adminis-tration Quarterly, 45(\), 4-33.

Ajzen, 1. (1991). The theory of planned behavior.Organizational Behavior and Human Deci-sionProcesses, 50(2), 179-211.

Alt, J. & Lieberman, S. (2010). Modeling the The-ory of Planned Behavior from survey data foraction choice in social simulations: Modeling,Virtual Environments and Simulations Insti-tute. Retrieved August 15, 2010, fromhttp://brimsconference.org/archives/2010/papers/10-BRIMS-126%20Alt.pdf

Antunez, B. (2000). When everyone is involved:Parents and communities in school reform. InFraming effective practice: Topics and issuesin the education of English language learners(pp. 53-59). Washington, DC: National Clear-inghouse for Bilingual Education. RetrievedOctober 28, 2003, fromwvyw.ncela.gvyu.edu/ncbepubs/tasvnthesis/framing/6parents. htm

Arias, M.B. & Morilla-Campbell. (2008). Promot-ing ELL parental involvement: Challenges incontested times. East Lansing, MI: The GreatLakes Center for Education Research and Prac-tice. Retrieved August 15, 2010 fromhttp://www.greatlakescenter.org/docs/Policy_Briefs/Arias ELL.pdf

Astone, N.M. & McLanahan, S.S. (1991).Familystructure, parental practices, and high schoolcompletion. American Sociological Review,56 (3), 309-320. Retrieved September 15,2010, from EBSCOhost Academic Search Pre-mier Database.

Coleman, J. (1990). Foundations of Social Theo-ry, Cambridge, MA: Belknap.

Comer, J. P., & Haynes, N.M. (1992). Summaryof School Development Program Effects. NewHave, Ct. Yale Child Study Center, June 1992.in Henderson, A. and Berla, N. (1997). Thefamily is critical to school achievement. Wash-ington, DC: Center for Law and Education.

Coon, D. & Mitterer, J.O. (2010). Introduction toPsychology: Gateways to Mind and Behavior.Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing

Cotton, K., & Wikelund, K. R. (2001). Parentinvolvement in education. School Improve-ment Research Series. Portland, OR:Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.Retrieved July 1, 2010, fromhttp://www.nwrel.Org/scpd/sirs/3/cu6.html.

200 / Education Voi. 133 No. 1

D'Andrade, R. & Strauss, C. (Eds.) (1997). Humanmotives and cultural models. New York: Cam-bridge University Press.

Dionne, E.J. (1998). Community Works: Therevival of civil society in America. Washing-ton, DC: Brookings Institution.

Edwards, P.A. & Young, L.S. (1990). Beyond par-ents; Family, Community, and SchoolInvolvement, Phi Delta Kappan, 74(1), 72-80.

Epstein, J. (1995). School/family/community part-nerships: Caring for children we share. PhiDelta Kappan, 76, 701-712.

Epstein, J.L., Sanders, M. G., Sheldon, S.B,Simon, B.S., Salinas, K. C , Jansom, N.R., etal. (2009). School, Eamily, and CommunityPartnerships: Your Handbook for Action.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Finders, M. & Lewis, C. (1994). Why some par-ents don't come to schools. EducationalLeadership, 51 (8), 50-54.

Goddard, R.D. Tschannen-Moran, M. & Hoy, W.K.(2001) Teacher trust in students and parents:A multilevel examination of the distributionand effects of teacher trust in urban elemen-tary schools. Elementary School Journal,102(1), 3-17.

Grant, K. B. & Ray, J.A. (2010). Home, School,and Community Collaboration: CulturallyResponsive Eamily Involvement. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Green, C.L., Walker, J.M.T., Hoover-Dempsey, K.V., & Sandier, H. M. (2007). Parents' motiva-tions for involvement in children's education:An empirical test of a theoretical model ofparental involvement. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 99 (3), 532-544.

Greenwood, G. E., & Hickman, C. W. (1991).Research and practice in parent involvement:Implications for teacher education. Elemen-tary School Journal, 91 (3), 279-288.

Harvard Family Research Project. (2006) Familyinvolvement makes a difference in school suc-cess. Boston: Harvard Graduate School ofEducation. Retrieved February 10, 2010, fromhttp://wvyw.hfi'p.org/publications-resources/browse-our-publications/family-involvement-makes-a-difference-in-school-successi

Haveman, R., & Wolfe, B. (1995). SucceedingGenerations: On the Effects of Investments inChildren. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Henderson, A. & Berla, N. (Eds.) (1994). A newgeneration of evidence: The family is criticalto student achievement. Washington, DC: Cen-ter for Law and Education.

Henderson, A., & Mapp, K. (2002). A new waveof evidence: The impact of school, family andcommunity connections on student achieve-ment. Austin, TX: National Center for Familyand Community Connections with Schools,Southwest Educational Development Labora-tory. Retrieved November 3, 2010 fromhttp://vyww.sedl.org/connections/resources/evidence.pdf

Heymann, J. (2000). What happens during andafter school: conditions faced by working par-ents living in poverty and their school-agedchildren. Journal of Children and Poverty,Mar 2000, Vol. 6 (1), p 5-21. RetrievedNovember 10, 2010 from EBSCOhost Acade-mic Search Premier database.

Hoover-Dempsey, K.V. & Sandier, H.M. (1995).Parental involvement in children's education:Why does it make a difference? Teachers Col-lege Record, 97(2), 310-331.

Hoover-Dempsey, K.V. & Sandier, H.M. (1997).Why do parents become involved in their chil-dren's education? Review of EducationalResearch, 07(1), 3-42.

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V, Walker, J. M.T., Sandier,H. M., Whetsel, C. L., Green. A. S., Wilkins,K. C. (2005). Why do parents becomeinvolved? Research findings and implications.The Elementary School Journal, 106, (2), 105-130.

Howard, T. & Reynolds, R. (2008). Examiningparent involvement in reversing the under-achievement of AfHcan American students inmiddle-class schools. Educational Eounda-tions. 22(1-2), 79-98.

Hoy, W.K. & Sweetland, S. (2001). Designingbetter schools: The meaning and measure ofenabling school structures. EducationalAdministration Quarterly, 37(3), 296-3.

Parental Involvement and The Theory... / 201

Jeynes, W. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationof parental involvement to urban elementaryschool academic achievement. Urban Eduea-tion, 40(3), 237-269.

Lawson, M. A. (2003). School family relations incontext: Parent and teacher perceptions of par-ent involvement. Urban Education, 38(1),77-133.

Lawrence-Lightfoot, S. (2003). The Essential Con-versation: What Parents and Teachers canLearn from Each Other. New York: BallantineBooks.

Lewis, D. (1969). Convention: A PhilosophicalStudy, Cambridge, MA, Cambridge Universi-ty Press

Long, J. & Green, S. (2009). No parent left behind:A two-year student of parental involvement inan urban primary school. Unpublished paper.University of Notre Dame, Office for Under-graduate Studies.

Mediratta, K., & Fruchter, N. (2001). Mapping thefield of organizing for school improvement:New York: Institute for Education and SocialPolicy.

Paige, R. (2002, April 7). Schools can't improvewithout the help of parents. USA Today, p. A-13.

Quiocho, Alice M.L. & Daoud, A.M. (2006). Dis-pelling Myths about Latino parentparticipation in schools. The EducationalForum. 70(3), 255-267.

Saunders, M.G. (2001). A study of the role of"community" in comprehensive school, fami-ly and community partnership programs.Elementary SchoolJournal, 102(\), 19-34.

Sheldon, S. B. (2007). Improving studentattendance with school, family, and communi-ty partnerships. Journal of EducationalResearch, 100 (5), 267-275.

Trusty, J. (1996). Relationship of parental involve-ment in teens' career development to teens'attitudes, perceptions, and behavior. Journalof Research and Development in Education,30 (1), 63-69.

Zill, N. & Nord, C. (1994). Running in Place: HowAmerican Families are Faring in a ChangingEconomy and Individualistic Society. Wash-ington, D.C.: Child Trends.

U. S. Department of Education. (2004). ParentalInvolvement: Title I, Part A., p. I. Non-regu-latory guidance. Washington, DC: USGovernment Printing Office. RetrievedNovember 15, 2010, fromhttp://www.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/parentinvguid.doc# Toc70481096

Wang, D. (2008). Family-school relations as socialcapital: Chinese parents in the Unites States.School Community Journal, 18(2), 119-146.

Yap, K.O. & Enoki, D.Y (1995). In search of theelusive magic bullet: Parental involvement andstudent outcomes. School Community Journal,5(2), 49-58.

http://www.risd41.org/ri/reportcards/rihs.pdf

"interview with Mr. Rick Loy, Superintendent #40(April 2009)

E-mail received(1/13/2011)

from district Principal

Copyright of Education is the property of Project Innovation, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed

to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However,

users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

parental involvement and the theory of planned behavior · parental involvement and the theory of...

Documents